Cycling Improvements
Strategies to Make Cycling Convenient, Safe and Pleasant
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
22 July 2008
This chapter describes ways
of improving cycling conditions and encouraging cycling activity.
There are many specific ways to improve bicycle transportation (ADONIS, 1998; Litman, et al., 2000). These include:
·
Improved paths and bikelanes.
·
Correcting specific roadway hazards (potholes, cracks, narrow lanes,
etc.).
·
Improved road, road shoulder and path Management
and Maintenance.
·
Improved Bike Parking.
·
Develop a more Connected street network and
clustered development (New Urbanism).
·
Establish Public Bike Systems that provide
convenient rental bicycles for short utilitarian trips.
·
Traffic Calming, Speed
Reductions, Vehicle Restrictions, and Road Space Reallocation.
·
Safety education, law enforcement and encouragement
programs.
·
Integration with transit (Bike/Transit Integration
and Transit Oriented Development).
·
Create a Multi-Modal Access Guide, which
includes maps and other information on how to cycle to a particular
destination.
·
Provide Public Bike Systems and bicycle rental
services.
·
Address Security Concerns of cyclists.
Cyclists use a variety of facilities, as summarized in Table 1. Improving these facilities tends to improving cycling conditions and increase cycling activity. A significant amount of cycling occurs on roads, highway shoulders and sidewalks that have no special designation or design features for cycling. It is therefore important to design, maintain and manage all of these facilities to accommodate cycling. For example, as much as possible roadways should have minimal potholes and cracks that can catch a bicycle tire, particularly along the right lane, and shoulders should be paved and maintained in good condition.
Table 1 Types of Bicycle Facilities
Type
|
Description |
|
Paths and trails (Type I) |
Various types of paths and
trails separated from roadways. These can be built along highways and
railroad rights of way, through parks, and other locations where a linear
corridor exists. |
|
Bike lanes (Type II) |
Special road lanes for use by cyclists. In some cases this involves removing curb parking, which tends to increase cyclist comfort and safety. |
|
Bike routes (Type III) |
Roadways designated as
being extra suitable for cycling. |
|
Bicycle boulevards |
City streets selected for
and designed with features to facilitate cycling and discourage excess motor
vehicle traffic speeds and volumes. |
|
Designated shared streets |
Roadways (particularly city
streets) with markings to indicate that cyclists should ride in the traffic
lane. |
|
General roadways |
A significant amount of
cycling occurs on roadways that have no special designation or design
features. |
|
Highway shoulders |
Highway shoulders, both
paved and unpaved, are often used for cycling. |
|
Sidewalks |
Sidewalks are used by some
cyclists, particularly by children and inexperienced adults, and along busy
roadways that lack provisions for cycling. |
|
These include bike racks,
storage lockers, and shower/changing facilities. |
This table describes various types of cycling facilities, including some that lack special designation or features, which should still be designed, maintained and managed to safely accommodate bicycles.
Figure 1 &
|
|
|
|
Before bikelane. (Photo curtsey of John Luton) |
After bikelane. |
Cycling improvements are usually implemented by local governments, sometimes with funding and technical support of regional or state/provincial transportation agencies. It usually begins with Nonmotorized Planning to identify problems and prioritize projects. Implementation may require special funds, either shifting funds within existing transportation, a new budget allocation, or grants.
Bicycling can substitute directly for automobile trips. Communities that improve cycling conditions often experience significant increases in bicycle travel and related reductions in vehicle travel (PBQD, 2000). Each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle commuting 0.075 percent, all else being equal (Nelson and Allen, 1997). Dill and Carr (2003) find that for U.S. cities with more than 250,000 population, each additional mile of bike lanes per square mile is associated with a roughly one percentage point increase in bicycle commute mode share. Rietveld and Daniel (2004) find that bicycle transportation increases in cities where cycling is relatively easier (fewer hindrances along cycling routes) and safer, and as cycling is faster and cheaper relative to automobile travel.
Although only about 1% of total
Table 2 Mode
|
|
Car |
Transit |
Cycling |
Walking |
Other |
|
|
39% |
13% |
9% |
31% |
8% |
|
|
74% |
14% |
1% |
10% |
1% |
|
|
42% |
14% |
20% |
21% |
3% |
|
|
54% |
12% |
4% |
30% |
0% |
|
|
52% |
11% |
10% |
27% |
0% |
|
|
44% |
8% |
27% |
19% |
1% |
|
|
36% |
11% |
10% |
39% |
4% |
|
|
38% |
20% |
10% |
29% |
3% |
|
|
62% |
14% |
8% |
12% |
4% |
|
|
84% |
3% |
1% |
9% |
2% |
The amount of walking and cycling varies significantly from one city to another.
Many communities have significant latent demand for bicycle transport. That is, people would bicycle more frequently if they had suitable facilities and resources (Komanoff and Roelofs, 1993). A U.S. survey found that 17% of adults claim they would sometimes bicycle commute if secure storage and changing facilities were available, 18% would if employers offered financial incentives, and 20% would if they had safer cycling facilities (Bicycling, 1991). The table below summarizes a Canadian public survey indicating high levels of interest in cycling and walking.
Table 3 Active
Transportation Survey Findings
(Environics, 1998)
|
|
Cycle |
Walk |
|
Currently use this mode for leisure and recreation. |
48% |
85% |
|
Currently use this mode for
transportation. |
24% |
58% |
|
Would like to use this mode
more frequently. |
66% |
80% |
|
Would cycle to work if
there “were a dedicated bike lane which would take me to my workplace in less
than 30 minutes at a comfortable pace.” |
70% |
NA |
|
Support for additional
government spending on bicycling facilities. |
82% |
NA |
Some studies conclude that cycling improvements have little impact on overall vehicle travel (Comsis, 1993; Apogee, 1994), but other studies indicate much higher potential mode shifts (Hillman, 1998; ADONIS, 1999; TravelSmart). Potential travel impacts are greater if cycling is Integrated with Transit, and with Smart Growth development practices that reduce travel requirements, for example, by locating schools and shops within residential neighborhoods.
Travel surveys and traffic counts usually under-record nonmotorized trips, because they ignore or undercount short trips, non-work travel, travel by children, recreational travel, and nonmotorized links (BTS, 2000). For example, a “bike-bus-bike” trip is often classified as “transit”, even if more distance is traveled by cycling. One study found that the actual number of nonmotorized trips is six times greater than what conventional surveys indicate (Rietveld, 2000). In 2000, the Southern California Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased the portion of nonmotorized travel in their models from about 2% of regional trips (based on conventional travel surveys) up to about 10% (based on more comprehensive travel data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey).
In recent years several evaluation tools have been developed to predict demand for cycling, evaluate cycling conditions and predict the effects of cycling improvements (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).
Table 4 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
Supports higher-density,
mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
Bicycle access affects
public transit use. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Cycling can provide a number of benefits and costs, as discussed below (for more information see the Bicyclepedia at www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost, and Litman, 1999).
Improved
cycling conditions increase travel choice and mobility, which particularly
benefits non-drivers. Cycling is often one of the most Affordable
transportation options. People who are transportation disadvantaged often rely
heavily on nonmotorized transportation, for trips made entirely by cycling and
to access transit. Bicycle transportation can help provide Basic
Mobility.
Shifts
from driving to nonmotorized modes can congestion reduction, road and parking
facility savings, consumer savings, environmental protection and increase
community livability (Litman, 1999; Buis, 2000). Nonmotorized transportation
supports other alternative modes (public transit and ridesharing), and Smart Growth land use objectives, including higher
density, mixed-use development to increase access, and reduce per capita
pavement.
Cycling
has a relatively high casualty rate per mile of travel, but this is offset by
reduced risk to other road users, and by the fact that cyclists tend to travel
less overall than motorists. International research suggests that shifts to
nonmotorized transport result in overall increases in road safety. For example,
the
Cycling
can provide significant aerobic fitness health benefits, which more than
offsets the increased crash risk (Roberts, et al., 1996; Frank and Engelke,
2000). Danish bicycle commuters have a 40% reduction in mortality compared with
people who do not cycle to work, which suggests that the incremental risks of
bicycle transportation are far outweighed by health benefits, at least for
experienced adult cyclists riding in a bicycle-friendly community (Andersen, et
al, 2000). Cyclists also tend to have great looking legs.
To
the degree that cycling improvements improve Community Livability and
reduce automobile costs, they can increase property values and improve Economic Development. In a survey of business owners in an
urban retail district, Drennen (2003) found that 65% consider arterial bike
lanes to provide overall economic development benefits, compared with 4% that
consider it overall negative, and 65% support expansion of the program in their
area.
Many
people enjoy cycling and the healthy exercise it provides. Some people argue
that transportation funding should not be spent on recreational activities,
such as walking and cycling facilities, yet a significant portion of motor
vehicle travel is for recreation. It makes no sense to refuse funding for a
path or bikelane, yet fund roadway capacity so motorists can drive to a
healthclub where they pedal a stationary bike. This suggests that both
transportation and recreational funding can be devoted to cycling improvements.
Costs
are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements. A
typical bike lane costs $52,000 per mile, or 30¢ per 2.1 mile trip bicycle trip
if used by 80 cyclists a day, while a typical new sidewalk is estimated to cost
12¢ per trip (Comsis, 1993). High-quality bike racks and lockers typically cost
$100-500 per bike. Some nonmotorized transportation improvements, such as
traffic calming, may reduce motor vehicle traffic speeds.
Table 5 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Consumer Savings |
3 |
Provides affordable
mobility. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases travel choices. |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Reduces automobile use and
provides health benefits. |
|
Environmental Impacts |
3 |
Reduces automobile use,
particularly high-polluting short trips. |
|
Land Use Impacts |
3 |
Supports higher-density
development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces motor vehicle
traffic and increases local access. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Since nearly everybody walks, and many people cycle, nonmotorized transportation improvements can benefit nearly everybody, although some people benefit more than others from a particular policy or project.
Improving conditions for nonmotorized travel often require public resources (money and land devoted to sidewalks, paths and bikelanes), the public cost per trip is usually less than that of automobile travel (money and land devoted to roads and parking facilities), so such improvements can be considered to increase horizontal equity.
Litman (1998) describes how people who drive less than average overpay their share of local transportation expenditures, since their local taxes fund roadway expenses that are primarily needed for the sake of automobile traffic, so increased funding for nonmotorized transportation is often justified for the sake of horizontal equity. Lower-income and transportation disadvantaged people often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, and so benefit significantly by nonmotorized improvements. Cycling can help provide Basic Mobility.
Table 6 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
1 |
Can be used by a portion of
the population. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
2 |
Requires public resources,
but usually less than costs for automobile trips. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
2 |
Some lower-income people
rely on cycling. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
2 |
Some transportation
disadvantaged people rely on cycling. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
2 |
Can help provide basic
mobility. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Nonmotorized transportation improvements are particularly important in areas with high levels of walking and cycling, higher-density commercial and residential areas, and resort areas. Universal Design improvements are particularly important in areas where people with disabilities frequently travel. Nonmotorized improvements are provided primarily by regional and local governments, sometimes with federal and state/provincial support. Businesses can provide sidewalks, bicycle parking, and shower facilities.
Table 7 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
2 |
|
Town. |
3 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
2 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
3 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
3 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improves Transport Choice
Nonmotorized Planning is often the first step for Bicycle Improvements. Managing Nonmotorized Facilities, Bicycle Encouragement, Public Bike Systems, Bicycle Parking, Bicycle/Transit Integration, Commute Trip Reduction, Road Space Reallocation and Traffic Calming are ways of improving cycling conditions. New Urbanism, Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development can help create roadway and land use patterns that are more suitable for bicycle transportation. Least Cost Planning and Institutional Reforms can help increase public investment in bicycle improvements. Address Security Concerns can be an important part of improving cycling conditions.
Nonmotorized transportation improvements are usually implemented by local or regional governments, sometimes with state or provincial transportation agency support. Some measures, such as sidewalks, paths and bicycle parking facilities, are implemented by businesses and developers.
Nonmotorized transportation programs are often limited by professional practices and funding that favors motorized modes, and development practices that result in lower-density, single-use land use patterns.
A number of guides and resources including ADONIS (1998) and Litman, et al. (2000) provide information on best practices for improving nonmotorized travel conditions and encouraging nonmotorized transport. These include:
· Educate all transportation
professionals in bicycle planning principles.
· Insure that all roads are suitable
for cycling unless it is specifically prohibited and suitable alternatives are
available.
· Use current planning
practices and design standards.
· Include nonmotorized travel
in transportation surveys and models.
· Perform user surveys to
identify problems and barriers to bicycle travel.
· Use traffic calming and
other traffic control measures to make street environments safer and more
pleasant for cycling.
|
“Listen
up all miscreants and malefactors. Today we discuss the seven deadly sins as
they apply to cycling…” (for the full column see Salvation by Bicycle). |
A
comprehensive plan for integrating bicycling infrastructure into the city's
street network, including on- and off-road facilities, and ancillary facilities
such as bicycle parking, signing and other amenities.
The
City of
The
City was awarded more than $3 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
program funds to plan and implement a city-wide bicycle network featuring bike
lanes, trails, and bicycle parking facilities.
With
a network of more than 240 miles of bikeway already on the ground, the Tucson
Bikeway Improvement Plan identifies more than 50 additional miles of striped bike
lanes that will be added to the system by 2001.
The
report Collection of Cycle Concepts by the Danish Road Directorate
includes a chapter of successful examples of community-based Danish bicycle
improvements, including roadway design, paths, bicycle parking, bicycle
shopping programs, and promotion campaigns.
This
award-winning plan identifies more than 900 miles of on- and off-street
facilities and recommends a series of policies and programs that would promote bicycle
use, encourage integration with transit, and link to the City's greenway
system. The activist group, Transportation
Alternatives, has published their own Bicycle
Blueprint for the city (www.transalt.org/blueprint).
Adopted
in December, 1998, the Wisconsin Bicycle Transportation Plan 2020 provides a
blueprint for more and safer bicycle trips with recommendations and roles for a
variety of government agencies and groups.
The
In 2007 the city of
Many arterials have been converted from 4- to 3-lane
or 4- to 2-lane reductions with bike lanes as part of road diet treatments. The Road
Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets (Rosales, 2007) is a
comprehensive guide for road diet implementation, including guidelines for identifying
and evaluating potential road diet sites, design concepts and practices, and
experience from case studies.
In the
Project
Is Part of MSRC Effort To Take Cars Off The Road
Diamond
Bar, CA., - There are several reasons why more people don’t ride their bikes to
work – 1) they’re fearful of busy intersections and riding on main boulevards,
2) it’s inconvenient, takes too much time and there are no shower
accommodations and 3) bicyclists often have a difficult time figuring out
exactly how to get from point A to point B on their bike.
In
an effort to eliminate some of these obstacles, the Mobile Source Air Pollution
Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), a government group who funds
transportation-related clean air projects, has earmarked $400,000 to fund an
interactive, internet-based bicycle route and map system. The system will
provide real-time bike route information based on point of origin and
destination markers, as well as identify bike facilities and accommodations
such as drinking fountains and restrooms along the way. Once a user inputs their
origin and destination, the system will provide directions in a turn-by-turn
format. If there is no designated bike path, the system will suggest a route
based on considerations including traffic volume, posted speed limits and
avoiding steep grades. Bike routes for the entire
Although
there are a number of traditional, hard copy bike maps available, they often
cover smaller regions and the maps are sometimes incomplete, according to MSRC
Chairman and Palm Springs Mayor William Kleindienst.
“We know that one of the obstacles for
commuting bicyclists is not having complete map and road directions,” he said.
“A real-time system with up-to-the-minute road conditions will provide bikers
with a high level of confidence that they can travel safely from home to work
and back. And, every time we take a car off the road we’re cutting pollution.”
Bike
enthusiasts including the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, a membership
based advocacy organization, say an online bike map system will help stimulate
bike ridership. “Both experienced and novice cyclists will find great use in an
internet-based bicycle routing system,” said Ron Milam, executive director,
LACBC.
The city of
In
1995, the Free City-Bike Program was implemented by the City of
With
the cooperation of sponsors, the project went so well that 500 more bikes were
added when
ADONIS (1999), Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking and How to Substitute Short Car Trips by Cycling and Walking, ADONIS Transport RTD Program, European Union (www.cordis.lu/transport/src/adonisrep.htm). This 300-page catalogue describes dozens of strategies to help improve and encourage walking and cycling, ranging from special facilities, to safety campaigns and traffic management to facilitate street crossing.
Alta Planning (2003), San Francisco Bicycle Program Supplemental Design Guidelines, San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) (www.altaplanning.com). This reflects current best practices in bicycle facility design.
Alta Planning + Design (2005), Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Technical Reference Guide: A Technical Reference and Technology Transfer Synthesis for Caltrans Planners and Engineers, California Department of Transportation (www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf).
Lars Bo Andersen, et al (2000), “All-Cause Mortality Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports and Cycling to Work,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160, No. 11 (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/issues/v160n11/full/ioi90593.html), June 12, 2000, pp. 1621-1628.
APBP
(2002), Bicycle Parking
Guidelines, Association
of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (www.apbp.org),
Apogee (1994), Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures; A Review and Analysis of the Literature, National Association of Regional Councils (www.narc.org).
Timothy Beatley (2000), Green Urbanism; Learning from European Cities, Island Press (www.islandpress.com).
BIC (2002), The Bicycle Matrix: Crash Type
Definition and Countermeasures,
Bicyclepedia (www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost) is a bicycle facility benefit/cost analysis tool available free on the Internet.
Bicycle Policy Audit (www.bypad.org) is a European Union research project to develop guidance for optimizing municipal and regional cycling policies.
Bike Metro (www.bikemetro.com)
identifies recommended bicycle routes from any two addresses in
Bikesharing Program Blog (http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com).
BTA 2005), Blueprint for Better Biking: 40 Ways to Get There: Plan to Ensure Portland is America’s Bicycling Hub, Bicycle Transportation Alliance (www.bta4bikes.org).
BTS, Pedestrian and Cycling Publications, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, USDOT, (http://www.bts.gov/NTL/subjects/ped-bike.html).
Bicycle
Federation of
Bicycling (1991) “A Trend On the Move: Commuting by Bicycle” Bicycling Magazine, Rodale Press.
Lester R. Brown and Janet Larsen (2002), World Turning To Bicycle For Mobility And
Exercise, Earth Policy Institute (www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update13.htm).
Jeroen Buis (2002), The Economic Significance of Cycling; A Study to Illustrate the Costs
and Benefits of Cycling Policy, VNG uitgeverij (The Haag; www.vnguitgeverij.nl) and I-ce (www.cycling.nl).
Sally
ClearChannel (2007), Smart Bike Information Document, Clear Channel Smart Bikes (www.smartbike.com).
Community Bicycle Network (CBN) Factsheets, newsletter, curriculum guides, and action manuals, Detour Publications (www.detourpublications.com).
Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.
Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of
Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and
CTR (2001), Recreational Trails Program: Report On
State Trail Projects, Coalition for Recreational Trails (CRT) and Federal
Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sttrail.htm). Includes a database with statistics on public trails
throughout the
CyclingAdvocacy.com (http://cyclingadvocacy.com) is a website dedicated to supporting cycling advocacy with comprehensive information resources.
Allison L. C. de
Cerreño and My Linh H. Nguyen-Novotny (2006), Pedestrian and Bicyclist Standards and Innovations in Large Central
Cities, Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management (www.wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter);
available at http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/files/bikeped.pdf.
DETR (2000), Cycling Bibliography and Walking Bibliography, Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/index.htm).
DFT (various years), Traffic Advisory Leaflets: Cycle Facilities, Department for Transport (www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/cycle/index.htm). Various information resources related to cycling promotion and planning.
Jennifer Dill and Theresa Carr (2003), “Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities,” Transportation Research Record 1828, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 116-123; available at www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/handy/ESP178/Dill_bike_facilities.pdf.
Linda Dixon (1996), “Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 1-9.
DRD (2000), Collection of Cycle Concepts, Danish Road Directorate (www.vd.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=17291). This comprehensive guidebook provides information on how to increase the use of bicycles and prevent bicycle accidents, including chapters on roadway design and maintenance, bicycle parking, promotion, safety programs and case studies.
Emily Drennen (2003), Economic Effects of Traffic
Calming on Urban Small Businesses, Masters Thesis,
EC (1999), Cycling: The Way Ahead for Towns and Cities, European Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/cycling/cycling_es.pdf).
Environics (1998), National Survey on Active Transportation, Go for Green, (www.goforgreen.ca).
HSRC (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT), Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); available free from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org).
David L. Harkey, et al (1998), The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, FHWA, FHWA-RD-98-072 (www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf).
Dr. Mayer Hillman (1998), Curbing Shorter Car Journeys: Prioritising the Alternatives, Friends of the Earth (www.foe.co.uk).
International Bicycle Fund (www.ibike.org) provides a variety of information and resources to support cycling for transportation and recreation throughout the world.
ITE (1998), Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, ITE, Federal Highway Administration (available online at www.bikefed.org/local.htm).
Michael King
(2002), Bicycle Facility Selection
Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison Of Approaches, Pedestrian and
Kevin J. Krizek, et al (2006), Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 552 (www.trb.org); available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_552.pdf.
Todd Litman (1999), Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transport for Achieving TDM Objectives, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); originally published as “Bicycling and Transportation Demand Management,” Transportation Research Record 1441, 1994, pp. 134-140.
Todd Litman (2000), Whose Roads?, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman, et al. (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; A Guide to Best Practices, VTPI (www.vtpi.org). Comprehensive guide with extensive references.
Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org) has a variety of useful resources for neighborhood planning and pedestrian/bicycle improvements, including “Designing Safe Streets and Neighborhoods”, “The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities" and “Why People Don't Walk and What City Planners Can Do About It” fact sheets.
Luc Nadal
(2007), “Bike Sharing Sweeps Paris Off Its Feet,” Sustainable Transport, No. 19, Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy (www.itdp.org), Fall 2007, pp.
8-13; at www.itdp.org/documents/st_magazine/ITDP-ST_Magazine-19.pdf.
Theodoros Natsinas, Jonathan Levine and Moira Zellner (2001), Successful Bicycle Planning: Adapting Lessons from Communities with High Bicycle Use to Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, The University of Michigan, Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition (www.wbwc.org/bikereport.pdf).
Arthur Nelson and David Allen (1997), “If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities,” Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 79-83.
Fietsberaad (2008), Cycling in the Netherlands, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Netherland; at www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Cycling%20in%20the%20Netherlands%20VenW.pdf.
Northwestern University Traffic Institute (www.nwu.edu/traffic) offers professional development workshops on bicycle planning and facility design, and other related subjects.
OECD (2004), National Policies to Promote Cycling; Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies – Moving Ahead, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (www.oecd.org/bookshop).
PBIC, Image Library (www.pedbikeimages.org),
by the Pedestrian and
PBQD
(2000), Data Collection and
Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale
Design, Transportation Model Improvement Program, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip).
Physical Activity Task Force (1995), More People, More Active, More Often,
John Pucher (1999), “Bicycling Renaissance in
John Pucher (2007), Cycling for Everyone: Key to Public and Political Support, keynote address at the 2007 National Bike Summit, League of American Bicyclists, Washington, DC, March 16, 2007; available at www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/BikeSummit2007COMP_Mar25.pdf.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2006), “Why Canadians Cycle More Than Americans: A Comparative Analysis Of Bicycling Trends And Policies,” Transport Policy, Vol. 13, May, 2006, pp. 265–279; at www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/TransportPolicyArticle.pdf.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler
(2008), “Making Cycling Irresistible:
Lessons from the
John Pucher
and Lewis Dijkstra (2000), “Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from
John Pucher and Christian Lefevre (1996), The
Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe and North America, MacMillan Press (
John Pucher & Ralph Buelher (2008), “At
the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy
Innovations in the
Piet Rietveld (2000), “Nonmotorized Modes in
Transport Systems: A Multimodal Chain Perspective for The
Piet Rietveld and Vanessa Daniel (2004), “Determinants of Bicycle Use: Do Municipal Policies Matter?,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 38, No. 7 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), August 2004, pp. 531-550.
Ian Roberts, Harry Owen, Peter Lumb, Colin MacDougall
(1996), Pedalling Health—Health Benefits
of a Modal Transport Shift, Bicycle Institute of
Jennifer Rosales (2006), Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets, William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 20, Parsons Brinckerhoff (www.pbworld.com/library/fellowship); summary available at www.oregonite.org/2007D6/paper_review/D4_201_Rosales_paper.pdf.
W.L. Schwartz, et al (1999), Guidebook on Methods to Estimate NonMotorized Travel: Overview of
Methods.
Patrick Siegman (2005), On-Street Bike Lanes
Preferred Alternative, Nelson/Nygaard, Memorandum to
Smart Bike (www.smartbike.com) is a public bicycle rental service designed to accommodate short-distance trips. Users obtain bikes by swiping an electronic card at one of many stations distributed around a city, and may leave the bike at another station. The system is financed by a combination of user fees and advertising revenues.
TravelSmart (www.travelsmart.transport.wa.gov.au) is a successful program for promoting alternative transportation, including cycling.
USEPA(1998), Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs, Transportation and Air Quality TCM Technical Overviews, US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/oms/transp/publicat/pub_tech.htm).
Velo.Info (www.velo.info) is a web-based information resource to assist cities in introducing measures to support and increase cycle use, funded by the European Commission.
World Transport Policy & Practice – Special Cycling Issue (www.ecoplan.org/library/wt7-3.pdf) Volume 7, No. 3, Autumn 2001.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#93